yaro
New Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by yaro on Apr 15, 2006 17:33:08 GMT -5
Hi Yaro, don't believe I've met you yet. Nice to meet you, welcome to the fun. ^_^ Hey, someone linked here from the infidelguy so now... here I am :D Nice to meet you too. Agreed. Which is why I find prepositional apologetics so dishonest. Because they deceptively attempt to rewrite the rules of philosophy and logic in their favor. When in fact, if anything, it is neutral to one position or the other. To some extent I agree with this statement. I would clarify it to say, that peoples value judgment on things are perhaps personal opinion. Again, however, it is a hierarchy. For example, rape would not be condoned by society, no matter how much an individual vouches for his preference of it. And I would say, that societies needs and desires, trump the individual etc. Meh... that's another topic, and another can of worms. :)
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 15, 2006 17:36:06 GMT -5
Before moving on, could you please give a confirmation or a rebuttle to my latest post:
That is what we have been discussing all along. You haven't provided empirical proof for empiricism, you have simply said "empiricism is a fact". That is not an arguement neither it is a rebuttle to my arguements. Your empiricism is dogmatic. You believe it because you believe it. But as I have shown, empiricism destroys itself because it cannot abide by it's own standards and requirements.
If you do not believe in God because God is not One to be touched, tasted, smelled, or seen, then you also must deny the possibility of the laws of logic and reason itself because they too cannot be touched, tasted, smelled, or seen. Not only does empiricism self-destruct, the ultimate outcome of empiricism is absurdity.
Empiricism cannot be proven empirically and the empiricist has no reason to believe in reason. It is not logical for him to believe in logic. If he attempts to use reason or logic then he is contradictory and has hence disqualified himself from any sort of meaningful discussion or debate.
|
|
yaro
New Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by yaro on Apr 15, 2006 17:47:54 GMT -5
That is what we have been discussing all along. You haven't provided empirical proof for empiricism, you have simply said "empiricism is a fact". That is not an argument neither it is a rebuttal to my arguments. Your empiricism is dogmatic. You believe it because you believe it. But as I have shown, empiricism destroys itself because it cannot abide by it's own standards and requirements. No no no no no. You don't get it. I don't need to prove empiricism to be able to use it and benefit from it. I don't need to know how my car works to get from place to place, or how my computer works, etc. I believe it, because I have to believe it! It's all you and I have. Weather you like it or not, at some point empiricism must be used when addressing reality. Just because I don't know who wrote the rule, doesn't mean you get to stick a god in the hole. That's it, that's my whole point. Oh jeez, not this old saw Laws of logic are concepts invented by people. They are descriptions of how things work, not actual 'things' themselves. Sure I do, they work, have worked, and will work. How do you account for that when you believe in a creature who can alter these rules at a whim? It seems to me, when you have a god who does nothing but illogical things, it's silly to point fingers at the atheist about who accounts for regularity in nature.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 15, 2006 17:54:59 GMT -5
So you are saying you don't have to prove empiricism? However you want to use empiricism even though it has never been proven? How do you know you should use it to begin with? You simply assume you should.
The only reason you are saying that you don't have to prove empiricism is because empiricism cannot be proven with empirical proof. If you cannot prove it by empirical proof, then empiricism is not true. If you try to prove empiricism using pragmatism or rationalism, then again empiricism is not true because empiricism requires that everything be proven empirically or it is not real.
Just admit that empiricism is dogmatic, that you simply assume it. You can't prove it by it's own standards and requirements, you simply assume it to be true.
By what test do you use to see if reason and logic work? Is it an empirical test? A rational test? Or a pragmatic test? If you use any test other then empiricism then you are debunking your own arguement for empiricism.
|
|
yaro
New Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by yaro on Apr 15, 2006 18:08:08 GMT -5
So you are saying you don't have to prove empiricism? However you want to use empiricism even though it has never been proven? There are two definitions of proven. The one you are using comes from formal logic, of the kind found in math. Here, such a thing as absolute truth/certainty exists. I can only offer you the proof of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' sort. The evidence of empiricisms validity is all around us. From the technology we use, to the cars we drive, etc. These are all things we have accomplished using empirical observation. No, I am saying, that I (personally) don't need to account for it, to see that it works. I am typing on a machine created through the benefit of empiricism. Further, I personally, don't need to account for it in order to reject the proposition of a Christian god. In other words, this particular philosophical puzzle need not be solved by me, nor does it in any way, gain ground for your position. No. I claim it as axiomatic. There is no other way to know things. If I was born, blind, deaf, dumb, with out an olfactory lobe, without nerves in my skin, and without a frontal cortex, nothing would exist to me. BS. I see the evidence of empiricisms validity all around me. In our civilization, medicine, and technology. Nope, they are axiomatic. It's the way my brain works. Sure, Kill me then you can see that my brain is no longer processing information and is therefore performing no logical tasks. done. explain. Sure. Can you function without empirical observation? My guess is no. Ok. So again, how does this give you a license to stick YAHWEH in there?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 15, 2006 18:19:17 GMT -5
I think I need to clarify. I am not against "seeing, touching, tasting, smelling." I believe in these things because God has given us these things.
However I am saying that these things are inadequate and are incapable of telling us all truth, though they do help us realize some truth.
I concur that we have accomplished things through seeing, touching, tasting, smelling. The question at hand is not "has these things helped us". God gave them to us because they are helpful. The question is whether or not empiricism is correct in it's assumption that all knowledge can be known empirically.
A Christian is not contradictory when he believes and employs reason and logic. We were made in the image of a reasonable, logical God. The Christian has a reason to believe in using "touching, tasting, smelling, seeing" because God has created us with a design.
The atheist has no means to justify reason, logic, or even the five senses. You couldn't say that they have a purpose because your denying that there was a God who gave them with purpose.
My arguement is that empiricism cannot be proven empirically as the ONLY source of knowledge. Because of the exclusiveness of empiricism it is reduced to absurdity because the laws of logic cannot be proven empirically. You say they are axiomatic and that it's simply the way your brain works. Again, you were created in the image of God and He made you a reasonable, logical individual. But if you say we live in a random universe, we are just a bunch of accidents, there is no reason for you to think in a rational, logical fashion.
The empiricist world-view is false because of it's ultimate outcome of absurdity and it's inability to comply with it's own standards. Not only is the Christian word-view consistent, the Christian world-view is correct because of the impossibility of the contrary. It mets the preconditions for intelligibility while atheism and agnosticism does not.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 15, 2006 18:31:41 GMT -5
Why don't you attempt at one more rebuttle, then I will make a closing statement and you can make a closing statement?
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on Apr 15, 2006 18:52:50 GMT -5
Hi Yaro, don't believe I've met you yet. Nice to meet you, welcome to the fun. ^_^ Hey, someone linked here from the infidelguy so now... here I am :D Nice to meet you too. Agreed. Which is why I find prepositional apologetics so dishonest. Because they deceptively attempt to rewrite the rules of philosophy and logic in their favor. When in fact, if anything, it is neutral to one position or the other. To some extent I agree with this statement. I would clarify it to say, that peoples value judgment on things are perhaps personal opinion. Again, however, it is a hierarchy. For example, rape would not be condoned by society, no matter how much an individual vouches for his preference of it. And I would say, that societies needs and desires, trump the individual etc. Meh... that's another topic, and another can of worms. :) Right, I agree with you on that. There are certain issues which are really indisputable. As I've stated before in other threads, I believe everything is open to personal belief and interpretation until it hurts another person. Once you reach the point at which your beliefs and actions become harmful to others, you have overstepped your bounds. For example, personal interpretation and belief concerning issues of race can be extremely dangerous and hurtful. The KKK can believe whatever they like, but the moment they start standing on street corners and condemning people of color, Jews, and other so called social undesirables as inhuman creatures undeserving of respect and civil rights, they have gone too far. The moment they start killing people because their personal beliefs say they don't have the right to live, they've gone too far. That's my definition of morality.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 15, 2006 18:55:53 GMT -5
You assume the authority to define universal morality? Doesn't that make you autonomous and arbitrary?
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on Apr 15, 2006 19:17:57 GMT -5
You assume the authority to define universal morality? Doesn't that make you autonomous and arbitrary? Have you listened to a single thing I've said since I got here? I make no presuppositions at defining morality. I simply allow that any human being have the right to decide for themselves what is right or wrong. Nothing that is harmful to others can be right, all else is open to interpretation. I assume no authority. But yes, I do assume autonomy for myself. I thought we had already concluded that.
|
|
yaro
New Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by yaro on Apr 15, 2006 20:50:22 GMT -5
Why don't you attempt at one more rebuttal, then I will make a closing statement and you can make a closing statement? There is nothing to rebut. My point still stands. Presup. apologetics gain you no ground. They are a red-herring designed to take the debate away from discussing the veracity of your particular god-concept, and begin a long drawn out session of splitting epistemological hairs. Meanwhile, the rest of the world is getting on fine and dandy using empiricism. If you want to actually show evidence for your particular god which you feel is persuasive, feel free, I would love to have a discussion on that. What I am not interested in, is a silly debate about weather I need to account for something that obviously works or not.
|
|
yaro
New Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by yaro on Apr 15, 2006 20:57:18 GMT -5
BTW, I like your board software. Did you programm this yourself Jesse? What software are you using, it's very nice.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 15, 2006 21:05:50 GMT -5
This is my closing:
Empericism has been clearly shown to be dogmatic and based on blind assumption. The empiricist says empiricism is true because empiricism is true and yet provides no empirical proof for empiricism and therefore does not match it's own self established requirements. The empiricist is contradictory, uses a double standard, and is setting his feet firmly in thin air. He has no reason to believe in reason, it is illogical for him to believe in logic, because he is sawing off the branch he is trying to sit on.
However God's word is true because it is God's word. God's Word has more authority then anything else simply because it is God's Word. The only foundational presupposition that is self-attesting and self-authorizing is "In the beginning God" because of the impossibility of the contrary. "In the beginning God" is the only presupposition that mets the preconditions for intelligability while all other presuppositions do not.
But the athiest and agnostic are not unbelievers because of intelligence but rather because of convience. As C. H. Spurgeon said, "the only real arguement against God is an unholy life. Follow a man home and see what he does in secret and you'll find out why he doesn't believe in God." It is convenient for the fornicator, drunkard, masterbator, adulterer, homosexual, liar, sodomite, theif to say there is no God in which all the world is going to be held accountable to on the Day of Judgment. It is convenient to say there is no universal Law giver. Sinful men reject the Law giver simply because they do not like His Laws.
God commands all men everywhere to repent. There are no atheists or agnostics in hell. At that point they are all believers. However it is too late. Only in this lifetime, before your lungs are emptied of the breath of life can you decide to repent of your rebellion against God and find mercy and grace at the cross of Jesus Christ.
My one word of closing is this: REPENT!
|
|
yaro
New Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by yaro on Apr 15, 2006 21:15:40 GMT -5
NOTE: This is a reply to a previous post I missed. A simple addition. Darn it. I apologize, I missed this post. I will reply to it now. I think I need to clarify. I am not against "seeing, touching, tasting, smelling." I believe in these things because God has given us these things. However I am saying that these things are inadequate and are incapable of telling us all truth, though they do help us realize some truth. I concur that we have accomplished things through seeing, touching, tasting, smelling. The question at hand is not "has these things helped us". God gave them to us because they are helpful. The question is whether or not empiricism is correct in it's assumption that all knowledge can be known empirically. Fair enough. And I actually agree with you thus far. Further, I would say that all knowledge must be known empirically by necessity. Because with out our knowledge 'input' organs (5 senses, brain, etc.) there would be no other way to gain knowledge. A vegetable doesn't think. It doesn't gain information or process it in any coherent manner. We do, by virtue of our senses, and only through our senses. If you would like to say otherwise, could you please point at some knowledge that isn't rooted in the workings of our body's? I agree with this view on things. But I would also contend that I, as an atheist, am not contrary in my position. Simply replace your god with the workings of my body, and you got it all. Ok. I have heard this all before and it makes no sense. I would now like to turn this argument on it's head. If empiricism leads to absurdity and arbitrary assertions, let's talk about your god. Empiricism says that we have an orderly universe with predictable outcomes to certain actions etc. Fine. Your god is unpredictable and arbitrary. Take Genesis for example, he makes birds, the world, trees , etc. from nothing. Yet he must take dust to make people? He needs dust? A rib to make a woman? He needs a rib? He takes 6 days to make the world and rests on the 7th? Why six? Why does god need rest? Talk about arbitrary and non-uniform! If god was real, I wouldn't expect anything to be uniform. After all they are subject to his whim. Indeed in the bible we have accounts of all sorts of absurd 'miracles' which contradict observed reality. Yet, this is not the world I see around me. The theist, is the one who's world view is reduced to absurdity.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 15, 2006 21:26:16 GMT -5
Thanks for the 5 pages of dialog/discussion/debate.
Until next time, many blessings to you.
- jesse
|
|